Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
duddy

duddy

by qu15501267889-sketch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

duddy_fs_changes

Lists recently added, modified, or deleted files, including models, plugins, and workflows, to check what changed after installing a node or suspecting file edits.

Instructions

最近哪些文件变了：新增/修改/删除了哪些模型、插件、工作流。用户说「我刚装了个节点」或者怀疑文件被改时用。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "duddy_fs_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the change categories and that additions, modifications, and deletions are all tracked, which is useful context beyond the name. It never states whether the call is read-only, what time window 'recently' means, what directory or workspace is scanned, or how results are ordered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero filler: the capability statement comes first and the usage triggers second. Nothing is redundant or padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a reasonable picture of what categories of change come back, but leaves the recency window, result ordering, and the undocumented limit parameter unaddressed. It is adequate but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter 'limit' has no schema description (0% coverage) and is never mentioned in the description, so its meaning, default of 10, and whether it caps results per category or overall are left entirely implicit. The description should have compensated for the coverage gap and does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete resource and scope: recent file changes broken down into added/modified/deleted models, plugins, and workflows. That is specific enough to separate it from generic siblings like duddy_events or duddy_get_logs, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives two concrete trigger scenarios — the user saying they just installed a node, or suspecting files were modified — which is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it or pointing to an alternative tool for adjacent questions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools